First of all, this "college student" is well into his thirties, which we all know is possible and common, but a little past the age to be a traditional student. Also, to refute Ivan's claim that communism was a real threat, I HAVE done my research on this. Look into Pinochet, Operation Condor, and the Caravan of death. Documents pertaining to these were released by Clinton in the 90's. Our country has done some really f****d up things in the name of eliminating Communist sentiment that never existed in Latin America, which most Latin American scholars will tell you and which most revolutionaries at the time documented. They hated Stalin, but did we listen? No. We funded and trained death squads to murder common people, because that, friends, is the American way.
February 2, 2010 Subject:
Brink of Camp
An unintentionally funny film produced by Searcy College, a fundamentalist religious school in Arkansas, warning of the dire future in store for America if "hippies" and other campus protestors have their way! This is a true period piece, since it was made in 1972, just as the campus protests of the 60s, and the Vietnam war and civil rights movement that largely caused them, were winding down. As is usually the case with an extremist point of view (the protestors on the one hand and the film's producers on the other), the solution is to be found in conformity
and authoritarianism. In this sense, the film foreshadows the rise of the religious right and the "answers" it suggests would probably be heartily endorsed by your average Fox News-watching "tea Party" type today.
November 18, 2009 Subject:
Communist threat was real
Some of you downplay the threat that was posed by communism. The fact is, communism was (and I would argue, still is, albeit in more subdued form) a very real threat.
For the last 55 years, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and leftist college professors (are there any professors that aren't?) have tried to brainwash the public into believing that the anti-communism of the late 40's/early 50's was a "red scare," that is to say, that there was no communist threat outside of the "paranoid fantasies" of "right wing cranks" like the ones so effectively caricatured in Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove. Arthur Miller wrote a play called The Crucible -- now required reading in many schools and universities -- which tried to portray so-called "McCarthyism" as a "witch hunt," again suggesting that there was no communist threat.
Well, communism really was a serious threat and the U.S. government and institutions really were infiltrated by communist agents and sympathizers at the highest levels. The Venona decrypts establish that beyond any reasonable doubt.
Some of you claim to believe in personal freedom and feel the anti-communists were violating the rights of communist traitors; well, go do some reading on how much personal freedom the average Soviet citizen had or read up on the human rights record of communist regimes and tell me if you still feel that way in the morning.
Men like Joseph McCarthy were not only justified, but had a moral obligation, to expose the communist traitors in his midst. I'm all for personal freedom, but not when that freedom is being utilized by conspirators towards the end of imposing a totalitarian regime upon the rest of us. Anyone who says that communism is harmless is either ill-informed, in denial, or is a communist himself spreading disinformation (yes, there are still commies around today, whose favorite pastimes include trying to whitewash the crimes of communist regimes; many of these dirtbags have teaching positions in universities).
Some of you will laugh at what I'm saying; understandable, since you've been conditioned by the mass media to not take claims such as mine seriously. All I can say is, go out and study the facts for yourself -- study the facts about Venona, learn what it was really like to live in the Soviet Union -- and then make up your mind. The public has not been told the truth about these matters by the media or the schools.
December 8, 2008 Subject:
What a terrific movie, although I quit after one minute.
"These ain't hippie clothes!"
Reviewer:slugs and urchins -
May 28, 2008 Subject:
disgusted for letting "them" do it!
Yes, I'm disgusted too. Completely shredding the Constitution through torture and robbery, and all in the name of freedom and democracy!
This is not a democracy, it's a bunch of sheep getting sheared to swell the accounts of the few. It's good for a laugh, only this kind of tripe is still going on and will continue until there's nothing left. If you're against righteous and good, then you're a commie! Change commie to terrorist and appeaser and you have the new century.
January 22, 2008 Subject:
There are a lot of things wrong with this film. We can start with the idea that the founding fathers were religious fanatics. Some of them were religious but other simply weren't. Benjamin Franklin for instance said "Lighthouses are more useful then churches" and Thomas Jefferson was barely religious at all.
Also, either you agree with freedom of speech or you don't. There is no middle ground. They skim over this issue for obvious reasons.
Of course, nowadays we would love to have these people in power as they would to the left of the current administration.
The ancestor who "defends" liberty comes from Salem, the site of the religious witch trials.
The history prof argues for "religious values". What kind of history prof is that? Then he goes on to defend science, ignoring that science is totally incompatible with religious superstition.
There are so many rightwing incoherences in this film that it is indeed very campy. Unfortunately it is religious fascist camp.
Reviewer:Patton Was Right -
November 10, 2007 Subject:
Why Do You Find Film This Offensive?
Why is everyone offended by this film? I watched it and found it very appropriate to our time in this great nation. Maybe the flaw lies within you and not the film? The campus protest were in fact led by a bunch of anti-American zealots. But of course the same bunch who pride themselves on being open minded and tolerant are the same students at Columbia University and other institutions of higher learning who attempt to shut down speaking engagements that doesn't fit their leftest political agenda.
June 28, 2007 Subject:
The hidden sequel....
If you like this, check out the other ending, see
Jerry Fairbanks productions "Tragedy or Hope."
Put these two films together, and you will see why everything in this country is so f@#$ed.
April 26, 2006 Subject:
Brink of Disaster too preachy.
The content of this 1972 film was presented in a stilted, preachy, didactic manner. Even the characters' reactions seem contrived. Many of the points are now dated. I feel the script should have been written in a more creative manner to be effective.
April 22, 2006 Subject:
Laniesha's Final review
This film was set in a college campus library, which in my opinion is the best place for a movie with this type of focus. I donÃÂt think there is a better place to discuss new and old ideas than a college library. This characters in this film went over traditional ideas, present changes and future ideologies.
Some of the traditional values that were pointed out by the older main characters had distinct merit. The example that some people only like to mention the Constitution or law when it suits them, but on many other aspects want to tear it down. There were lots of things that the traditional ideas were being challenged on by the present changes they were against.
The film seem to point out that older generations do not feel free speech was created so young people could go around saying some of the things that they say. The young John Smith attempted to defend some of the things being said by his generation. If one is to really think about it, free speech was really created so people could say things that others might not like. How else do you challenge ideas, that might be wrong or out dated?
As the two sides of the generation gap debated about the past being trampled by the present, each wondered what the future would hold. Is the future doomed because of the restrictions of the past or is it ill fated by the liberal actions of the present? This seemed to be an age old discussion.
I enjoyed what I thought to be the point of the film. I really liked the fact that film leaves you hanging as to what was going to happened once the door was opened. I think the locked door with the past and present on one side and future on the other was a brilliant way of demonstrating the metaphor of uncertainty about the future.
This film was produced in 1972 and focused on the problems of the 60ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs and early 70ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs such as free love, communism, drugs and more. In this film a medical student at a school named Johnny who is a Vietnam Veteran sneaks into the library with a baseball bat saying that he had intentions of protecting a rare collection of irreplaceable medical books it from the SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, who were rumored to be on their way to burn down the library. The ghost JohnnyÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather, Jonathan Smith, shows up to find out if his dying for our country as a founding father was worth it, since American values had become so misconstrued. He had died when he was 20 years old at the battle of Ticonderoga and left behind a 2 month old son. As they start talking Johnny states that he is neither for nor against the SDS, because he sees their side of things too. As the movie progresses however, Johnny starts defending the cause of the SDS more and more on subjects such as religion and tearing down one thing to build another. As they are talking Dr. Hartman showed up and continued to attempt to talk sense into Johnny. They talked about drugs, communism, burning of buildings, and more. Johnny became more and more defensive until finally he flat out does not allow Dr. Hartman to go and stop the SDS when they start to break in. In part 2 of the movie Jonathan Smith hit Johnny over the head to keep him from helping the SDS people advance into their room of the library as they started to break down the door and the movie ended.
Though this film is out of date, it probably tackled many current events of the time that it was created. Things like hippies and the SDS were scary to many adults and educators and they wanted to help mold the minds of the younger generation who looked up to them. I donÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt know how much of an effect this might have had on the younger generation because while they were playing devilÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs advocate they were giving the young kids lots of ammunition to argue the points of the rebels. Also, while they were arguing about drugs, Johnny lit up a joint and continued on with the conversation which isnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt really a good anti-drug message. There were good points made, and some good scare tactics which probably affected many of the young people watching it, but since most of those topics arenÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt a real threat to todayÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs society, it wouldnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt be as scary now.
HUM 2250 - W18
Reviewer:vcc student -
April 22, 2006 Subject:
Founding fathers and society then and now
Overall I thought the movie was interesting and thought provoking but I really didnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt see the point in it. I was left wondering if there was more to the movie that I didnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt see. However the movie did touch on what society was like at that time. I believe it was depicting somewhere in the late 60ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs or early 70ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs. Society was in a state of change. The young people were protesting and going against authority and wanted more freedom from the moral bonds the adults had been living under. Today we see how those young people (college student age) succeeded and how far our society today is from the moral standards set by our founding fathers. JohnnyÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs great, great, etc, grandfather was supposedly a founding father and spoke of the moral laws they had set based on GodÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs laws. Johnny himself spoke of the changes that were taking place in his time. He spoke of the ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂmarriage licenseÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ and how it really wasnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt a legal contract at all or even if it was it could be broken just like the coaches contract was broken. We can see how that view has turned out. Today a marriage has very little meaning. It can be broken very easily and people feel that if things become difficult than just end it rather than try to get help to resolve the issues. I thought that it was very interesting that Johnny was in this library and lit up a cigarette or I thought it was a cigarette but actually turned out to be a ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂjointÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ. He casually smoked it as though it was nothing, as though it was legal and the professor really didnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt object. I think this point in the movie depicted societyÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs view on marijuana at that time. Many of the college age youth thought marijuana should be legalized and as Johnny stated it wouldnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt be long until it was. Today we see a much different attitude. All types of drugs, even marijuana are viewed by society as bad, illegal, dangerous and there is ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂzero toleranceÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ. This is one area where the shift in society that was started by the youth didnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt get fulfilled. Another interesting point of the film was human rights, property rights and the right to descent. I think that the youth movement of that time was using these ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂrightsÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ to there benefit so that they could get away with their protests and riots. I think they felt as Johnny did that they have the ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂrightÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ to do the things they did however I think that the rest of society felt as the professor did, that they were misapplying their rights. I like how the professor put it; ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂfreedom of speech turned into freedom of filthÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ. I think he is absolutely correct. People have used ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂfreedom of speechÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ to be able to get away with projecting what ever image they want and I donÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt think that that was the intent. Overall this movie sheds light on the intentions of the founding fathers, how those intentions were maintained as best as possible until the 60ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs and 70ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs when the youth became fed up with it and where the adults of that time period thought that society was heading. We can definitely see simply by watching the news how this shift has turned out and that society would have been much better off had they not allowed the shift that tool place and maintained a high since of morals using GodÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs word as the guiding basis. Instead society today is far from the high moral standards that the founding fathers originally established.
December 8, 2005 Subject:
Chablis Everett Brink of Disaster
I found the movie Brink of Disaster very interesting. John Smith first is in a college library doing some work on a paper he has to write. Then in the corner a ghost from his pass come to tell him that some radical students are threatening to burn down the college library. The ghost says that he is his great, great, great grandfather from is pass. I did wonder why John never left the college library, though he knew it was going to be burned down. Then John and the ghost continue to talk about the changes in the world and communism in America. I really felt that the people wanted to change, just like in the other radical movement movies that we viewed for our discussion. (i.e. The Terrible Truth) Then John Smith's Professor comes in the room from out of no where. The Professor has the same information that there's a radical group outside ready to burn down the college library. I found that kind of odd that the Professor would go in to talk to John. The Professor begin to talk about how the young people are not getting married and shacking up together. What he is saying is that they are breaking up the family life, basically breaking a contract. But John refers this not getting married and staying together to how his coach broke his contract to coach there team. So bascially contracts can be broken he said and nothing will happen. I find kind of stupid and wrong. That was an interesting point the Professor made about how the young viewed marriage. Most people even today live just like that. We need not break the marital contract. I thought that the movie was very educational from a young perons viewpoint. The Professore hits on another good note that I thought was interesting. The amount of drugs that the young people was using and making excuses for it. Even then, the people was trying to make smoking drugs (weed) legal in the United States. The Professor said that they should stop making excuses and get up and get a job. More people today need to see this movie to learn and practice it. Overall, I found the movie very educational and good learning guide for our young people today.
December 8, 2005 Subject:
Message everyone should be aware of
Over all, I thought the movie was a little bit boring but had interesting facts. It was about a student named John who cares only for ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂhisÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ human rights. He believes in democracy, freedom of speech, and his property rights. He is stuck in a library trying to finish his paper on heartbeats of turtles. He is only defending rare pre-med books that are valuable and irreplaceable and not the rest of the library from being vandalized and burned. His only weapon is a bat in which he thinks he could fight people one by one. His old ancestorÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs ghost from the Revolutionary days paid him a visit to teach him a little bit of his history as well as Americas history. There is actually a riot outside of the school and people are burning down buildings. His ancestor told him that things have changed drastically in todayÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs society. Back then in his time, what seem to be important to him, now, donÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt seem important at all. He states that family and religion were the only important things to him. For example getting married today isnt as holy as back then because it is so easy to get married as to get a divorce. He also says that they used to worship God and now a day it seems as thought we are denying God. He goes on preaching to him about his ancestors and how America got its name and that they were young in age like the founding father of the US which at the time happened to be 19. He also says that the people out there admire communist countries like Russia and China and all they want is to worsen this country even more.
They both get interrupted by a history teacher, Mr. Harden. This man is strongly opinionated about our government and tries to knock some sense into johnÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs head. Mr. Harden is defending not only the pre-med books, but all other books in the library including environmental, law books as well. He is kind of paranoid because he thinks that the hippies that are outside looting the streets might break in the library and vandalize it. He strongly suggests that you donÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt have to own property to have property rights in it. He thinks that freedom of speech is freedom of filth because of all the people that are abusing the system. People always have to take things to the next level. This teacher is trying to make him see all the corruption that has taken over in our country and his ghost is there to represent all of the hard work and dedication they Americans went through to fight for our country to make it what it should be today. One story the professor told that impacted me was when he said that there a guy that was at the top of a roof and he was going to commit suicide and people all over were yelling ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂjump-jumpÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ and he finally did. I pictured that story so well when they were telling it and it was so horrible. He called everyone who was yelling ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂmurderersÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ (which in my opinion were!)
I completely agree with the professor in many ways. ItÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs people like John, which are taking this country to complete extremes. I think it all started when a man decided to sue the schools for saying the pledge of allegiance and then went on in taking the ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂUnder GodÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ words out. Now it seems that saying ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂChristmas treeÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ is inappropriate and itÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs now referred to as ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂHoliday treeÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ which is so ridiculous!!! We have so many rights but there are always those people that are extremist who have nothing better to do then to take these privileges we all call rights and abuse it as far as we can go. I think this movie was a bit boring because itÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs an old film but it ha a really good message that everyone should hear.
December 3, 2005 Subject:
This film is reminiscent of "The Terrible Truth", the "teenagers on drugs" movie. Both use scare tactics, but they're so poorly done that it's difficult to take them seriously.
Here we have John Smith, a college student and Vietnam veteran, holed up in a library trying to finish writing his paper on turtles. The library is under siege by a radical student group and he's armed with a baseball bat. (How stupid is John?) It's in the library where he meets his ghost of an ancestor from colonial times who lectures him on the values our country was founded on. Then his history professor comes in and lectures him on decaying American values, etc. (How stupid is this professor to come into a library which is probably going to be set on fire?) Further, both John and his professor have accepted the fact and make it seem perfectly normal that they're talking to a ghost. The ghost is the only smart one because he can't be hurt in a fire.
The professor really seems angry, which makes him preachy and boring to listen to. He basically says our right to freedom of speech is only a right if we're not dissenting. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. (As if this didn't happen until the sixties.) He ranted about a lot more, and didn't fail to mention that it was communism that was undermining America's moral and religious principles. (Were we really that afraid of the communists back then?)
The film REALLY lost my interest, though, when the professor basically said hippies were SDS members and they were the ones who were going to burn the library. SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society which was a militant and often violent student group. The hippie movement was NOT the same as SDS. Again, it was just another scare tactic the film maker was trying to use. But for me, if they can't get their facts straight, I just can't listen.
November 11, 2005 Subject:
Your cess pool Amerika
This video explains (If one has the intellengence to understand) the truth of what was taking place in the 1960's.
Its obvious the communist have taken Amerika from with-in just as the video explains how to destroy America and it was done, and as the man asked what do they have to offer....This cess pool called amerika of today is the answer.
One who has been indoctrinated (As it was called back then "Re-education camps) into communism as the previous posters have,they will never know what the truth really is.....And they don't.
Exactly what the professor was warning about has happened in amerika. Thats what is called "Truth".
What a ugly,nasty,filthy country it is today.
If you have not seen this video...attempt to open your mind beyond the communism propaganda of the previous posters and learn what they are saying back then and look around you and see the truth.
The new-age of greed,lust,money is god and all the filth these creatures have created.
Think....Is it better? Is it "really" a world you like to live in? Or is it a world of drugs,me,me,me,money,money,money and screw you.
Don't you just hate it when you are in the library trying to finish your paper on turtles and some crackpot professor and a ghost of one of your ancestors comes in and starts spouting their neo-con rants? Yeah, me too. This is a campy film which indicts the hippie movement as lawless and godless animals bent on the destruction of the American Way. The professor is the most ridiculous character, ranting aimlessly about everything under the sun, from hippies to commies, from Jesus to marijuana, from free sex to free speech. The student isn't much better either, almost all of his arguments are little more than mindless cliches and 1960-70s slang ("Right on!"). The one time (towards the end) that the student does manage to put together a coherent counter-argument (interestingly, it only comes after he's been toking on some mary-jane for a while), the professor has nothing to say in response, except to launch into another off-the-subject rant.
What I found most disturbing about this film, though, was the professor's attack on free speech, or as he calls it, "filth speech." According to his logic, freedom of speech needs to be curtailed in order to save America. He also shows contempt towards the Constitution.
I know these were just actors, but you could see a real, palpable ANGER behind their conservative point of view. They really did believe what they were preaching.
Rating: 5 stars for humor and campiness. 1 star for its lack of any reasoned arguments.
Reviewer:Christine Hennig -
July 26, 2003 Subject:
Brink of Disaster (Full Film)
Ratings: Camp/Humor Value: ****. Weirdness: ***. Historical Interest: ****. Overall Rating: ****.
July 7, 2003 Subject:
beckoning to a silent majority
This low-budget film features short clips of Jerry Rubin, H. Rap Brown, and 60s-era riots to set the scene for a long debate between a history professor, Vietnam veteran med. student, and a Founding father. The film takes place in a university library, which for no apparent reason is being invaded and vandalized by demonstrators.
The underlying message is for all Americans on the fence to wake up and fight back against the radicals. The colonist claimed that 60s revolutionaries only want to destroy what generations worked to build. He describes a mythical early America, where people had family and religion, and he proclaimed that the belief in God is the core difference between then and now.
The medical school student defended human rights over property rights, and a constitutional right to dissent. The history professor attempted to deny this argument, claiming the "right of dissent is not the right to destroy," and that "freedom of speech is a beautiful concept that is deliberately fouled up" and has become "freedom of filth." And this "filth," embodied by the barbarian "Students for a Dirty Society" (SDS) at the gates, is at war with the so-called decent people for America's future. The history professor then claimed that smut, free sex, indecent films and the like were all part of a plot by international communism to undemine America's moral, ethics and religious principles and destroy it from the inside.
The division of America into decent people and dirty people is extremely crude, and ignores any of the legitimate grievances people had in the 60s. The struggle over civil rights and war in Vietnam is almost entirely ignored, and demonstrators were reduced to caricatures of hippie revolutionaries and black rioters. Americans of the past are naively presented as wholly moral, upstanding citizens, whose decendents are under siege by well-organized SDS cadres. This film overestimates the cohesion and strength of student organizations in the 1960s, and its sheer unbelievability and endless speechmaking makes it unlikely to have moved anyone from the silent majority to militant defenders of the status quo.
March 25, 2003 Subject:
commies controll smut peddling hippies hell bent on destroying college librarys and expensive medical equipement!!!
while the basis of the arguement against dissenting opinion put forth in this short film is complete garbage, it's interesting nonetheless to witness how the holier then thou establishment figure(s) blame ALL of americas problems on young people unhappy with the govt,
managing to tag a wide range of social ills
on the commie controlled "wierdos" whose idea of
dissenting is 'in reality' an attempt at destroying america from within ...
while this was never fully explained, from this film one might conclude the hippies harboured a blind hated for america because of an irrational
need to destroy it out of love for commie russia and red china; countrys, we're continualy reminded, the hippies supposedly admired for some reason
something rather odd that occurred in this film was while the history teacher/establishment figure was denouncing dissenters, he seemlessly
merged into a diatribe about how dissenters are
killed (if that's what he meant by making a slashing motion across his neck) in communist parts of the world ... in a way it almost comes off as if this guy would rather prefer communist views on dissent because of the heavy handed attitude he has of hippies, which in effect indirectly underminds the message of american freedom-
also, the authoritarian figure proposes hippies would destroy pricey hospial equipement in their bid to (you guessed it) destroy america, a bizare
suggestion to say the least; it was also insisted that hippies are fundamentaly bad because they "have no need for God", a sentiment that seems to ignore the fact that
their grievences were with the US Govt, not God-
February 16, 2003 Subject:
Whose side are you on?
Johnny, one of the leaders in a gang that is against anything and everything breaks into the livrary to study (?) and also to protect the library from the hooligans when they arrive. This already doesn't make sense. When his great-great-great etc Grandfather arrives and starts chewing out Johnny for what has gone wrong in this country, and then his History teacher comes in and joins him in the philosphical beat down of Johnny, you'll realize that this is one big pile of 70's hoohah of blaming everything on everyone (both sides arguements). WHile just the 3 (actually 2) actor in one setting might get a littl boring for some, I found the whole piece rather funny in some places (Religion is the answer!) and high-handed in others (It's the dirty movies that corrupting our youth!) Reccomended viewing!
January 25, 2003 Subject:
Brink of Disaster
This is one of the greatest examples of the Christian, "decent" moral high-horses we see everyday in the news and congress. The "freedom of filth" is EXACTLY what we need to protect. The second we begin to pass laws and regulate what the majority sees as wrong, suddenly homosexual literature, aids, and birth-control will be banned. And not all marijuana users become "heroin" addicts; if marijuana were a "gateway" drug for everyone who ever used it why isn't 40 million Americans addicted to "H" (as another film in the archive said, "that's jazz talk for heroin"). The list of failed logic and moral hypocrisy goes on and on. Currently I'm using this in my student film to show the very things I've ranted about above. DEFENTLY worth a download.
Film opens with montage of scenes of student protest. Credits occur over this sequence.
Loosely structured as a narrative in which John Smith (a college student) is visited by his great great great (etc.) grandfather John Smith (from 1776), this film works to educate a young audience on the "breakdown of moral, religious, and ethical principles" in the US. With the help of a history professor, John Smith (1776) explains how he gave his life to build the USA and nowadays a "bunch of young hooligans" are working to destroy it. Though fairly banal visually (the whole film is set in a library which the "weirdos" have threatened to torch) there are tons of amazing sound bytes regarding student movements (SDS as "students for a dirtier society"), religion, marijuana, sexuality, freedom of speech ("freedom of speech has become freedom of filth"), pornography ("filthy books that no decent people would read"). There is discussion of H. "Rap" Brown (accompanied by archival footage) calling upon student bodies to carry guns. There is also footage and discussion of the riots, burning, and looting done by student activists. The film ends as the student radicals break their way into the library--the image freezes and a title card reads: "will you let this be THE END?".
Drugs Dissent 1960s Social issues Protest Revolution